do any of you remember an article in the nytimes a while back about an art show in soho that sold out and it was later revealed that a 4 yr old girl had done the paintings - kind of see a similarity between these two stories.
i think this goes back to that arguement in another thread ( the dead mice) - relating to the subjectivity of art and how important it is (in my opinion) to focus on the content rather than where and how and by whom it was created.
I don't see a justification anywhere (especially in the stories you cited) for ignoring context. Maybe you could clarify.
assuming your read my posts in the dead mice thread:
I wrote:
many people change their positions on art and film based on their inherent judgements and/or knowledge of the creator. for instance: that filmmaker seems like a little brat or this artist is gay or that painter used human blood,on and on (or in this instance - the painter is a monkey).
the art should not be judged out of the immediate context of the image/story/statement. Any knowledge beyond the work itself doesn't and shouldn't change or discredit that work."
______
Two Lane Black top discredits the painting of the monkey when it's contextualized, just as some people did for the young girl, just as some did for photograph of the mice finger puppets.
I'm saying it's irrelevent who the hell painted those images. It's very clear that there is a consistant style and form to those painting the monkey did. Choices were made. And by looking at three of them together, those choices follow a pattern. Obviously this monkey didn't just throw paint around nebulously.
People have a tendency to change opinion based on contextual variables. If one was told that those paintings were early works of Jackson Pollock they'd think it was brilliant, however upon finding out it's a monkey, they very well may discredit the work or change their opinion.
Just as people did with the dead mice. They focused more on the contextual morality of HOW it was created, i.e. did or didn't those mice die (for a lack of a better expression) "in the name of art".
It just think it's a bad way to approach art.
